What do you think?
Rate this book
One True Life: The Stoics and Early Christians as Rival Traditions
In this groundbreaking, cross-disciplinary work of philosophy and biblical studies, New Testament scholar C. Kavin Rowe explores the promise and problems inherent in engaging rival philosophical claims to what is true. Juxtaposing the Roman Stoics Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius with the Christian saints Paul, Luke, and Justin Martyr, and incorporating the contemporary views of Jeffrey Stout, Alasdair McIntyre, Charles Taylor, Martha Nussbaum, Pierre Hadot, and others, the author suggests that in a world of religious pluralism there is negligible gain in sampling from separate belief systems. This thought-provoking volume reconceives the relationship between ancient philosophy and emergent Christianity as a rivalry between strong traditions of life and offers powerful arguments for the exclusive commitment to a community of belief and a particular form of philosophical life as the path to existential truth.
344 pages, Hardcover
First published March 8, 2016
19 people are currently reading
162 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
April 14, 2024
This book is not at all what most readers will likely expect or want. It is not an in-depth comparative study of the Stoic and early Christian worldviews, but rather a pedestrian digest of six writers - Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Paul, Luke, and Justin Martyr - followed by a turgid methodological discussion that non-academics will have little use for, besides being bored to tears. The basic conclusion - seemingly the book's only substantial point - is that the two traditions cannot be treated as a hodgepodge of easily translatable intellectual contents, but must instead be seen as two comprehensive forms of life which cannot be lived out simultaneously. A curiously lopsided book that provides little of interest either for specialists or for broadly-informed generalists.
April 14, 2024
A juxtaposition of Stoic philosophy and early Christian religiosity, which, as the title says, treats them as fundamentally irreconcilable traditions. Two-thirds of the book consist of separate chapters on Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Paul of Tarsus, Luke and Justin Martyr. These chapters explain their respective views on topics such as God, wisdom, death, ethics and politics. It is unclear why is the book organized this way, wasting time on biographical details, commenting on writing styles, and discussing ideas which are not meaningfully referenced later. It is quite long-winded and if you already have basic understanding of Stoicism and Christianity you will find little new information here.
The book abruptly transitions from a basic introduction aimed at general readers to a dense, academic discussion concerning the current state of scholarship on the Stoic-Christian relationship, addressing terminological and methodological issues. Rowe critiques what he terms as scholarly, encyclopedic reasoning and ambitiously seeks to rectify such errors by treating both subjects as lived experiences rather than mere intellectual abstractions. His primary aim is to present early Christianity as a distinct tradition, minimally influenced by Greco-Roman thought. While his criticisms are valid, his efforts to provide meaningful and engaging elaboration fall short. Rowe’s effort also appears somewhat futile because, if existing understanding of Stoicism and early Christianity is flawed, it is unclear what kind of perspective does he have to elucidate traditions which have been dead for centuries. He even admits "that in practice I am unable to understand certain Stoic things – perhaps even central patterns of reasoning".
The book rarely moves beyond vague assertions and unremarkable conclusions. It predominantly focuses on philosophical and linguistic analysis, avoiding historical or sociological explanations even though they might be appropriate in some cases. Rowe constantly emphasizes the importance of prioritizing lived traditions over intellectual abstractions, but he does not really demonstrate this perspective in his own thinking. Instead, he awkwardly navigates between broad trivialities and dry, highly specialized academic discussions, frequently referencing Alasdair MacIntyre. Although the introduction raises some intriguing questions, the rest of the book is poorly structured, repetitive and quite boring. I am very confused by the high ratings. Academic reviewers were notably less impressed, observing that some of Rowe’s interpretations of the philosophers are quite dubious, and that his ambitious conclusions are inadequately supported. Regardless of one's stance on the main thesis, this book is tedious, disorganized, and very disappointing.
The book abruptly transitions from a basic introduction aimed at general readers to a dense, academic discussion concerning the current state of scholarship on the Stoic-Christian relationship, addressing terminological and methodological issues. Rowe critiques what he terms as scholarly, encyclopedic reasoning and ambitiously seeks to rectify such errors by treating both subjects as lived experiences rather than mere intellectual abstractions. His primary aim is to present early Christianity as a distinct tradition, minimally influenced by Greco-Roman thought. While his criticisms are valid, his efforts to provide meaningful and engaging elaboration fall short. Rowe’s effort also appears somewhat futile because, if existing understanding of Stoicism and early Christianity is flawed, it is unclear what kind of perspective does he have to elucidate traditions which have been dead for centuries. He even admits "that in practice I am unable to understand certain Stoic things – perhaps even central patterns of reasoning".
The book rarely moves beyond vague assertions and unremarkable conclusions. It predominantly focuses on philosophical and linguistic analysis, avoiding historical or sociological explanations even though they might be appropriate in some cases. Rowe constantly emphasizes the importance of prioritizing lived traditions over intellectual abstractions, but he does not really demonstrate this perspective in his own thinking. Instead, he awkwardly navigates between broad trivialities and dry, highly specialized academic discussions, frequently referencing Alasdair MacIntyre. Although the introduction raises some intriguing questions, the rest of the book is poorly structured, repetitive and quite boring. I am very confused by the high ratings. Academic reviewers were notably less impressed, observing that some of Rowe’s interpretations of the philosophers are quite dubious, and that his ambitious conclusions are inadequately supported. Regardless of one's stance on the main thesis, this book is tedious, disorganized, and very disappointing.
June 24, 2025
Excellent, but the argument is *difficult to compare.
*this is a dumb pedantic joke
*this is a dumb pedantic joke
April 22, 2019
This was phenomenal.
In parts 1 & 2 Rowe sketches out the contours of 1st & 2nd century Christianity and stoicism by analyzing the main themes from the writings of Seneca, Epictetus, and Aurelius for the Stoics and Paul, Luke, and Justin Martyr for the Christians. He lets each figure speak for themselves and does not force them into preconceived categories and structures. This alone is fantastic.
Part 3 is where it really starts to get intense. This part gets really deep really quick. I understood as much as I could, but even then I realized at times I was a bit out of my depth. Essentially Rowe is criticizing common scholarly ways of analyzing and comparing what he calls competing traditions. Academics tend to take what he calls the encyclopedic approach which fails to deal with the unique particularity and structured life of a tradition. Instead the encyclopedic approach treats a tradition as abstract thoughts or positions on a set of issues, say "God" "the after life" "ethics" etc. However, Rowe insists that we have to understand traditions according to the narratives that they tell about themselves. Thus, "God" for a Christian is not merely a personal, omnipotent, ominiscient being, who also happens to be in three persons with a united essence, but "God" is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Jesus. God is known through a narrative. Likewise the Stoic narrative has a different accounting of what they would refer to as "God" such that while they may be using the same word as the Christians, they might as well not be since they mean something completely different by it. Rowe asserts that traditions cannot be translated into one another. Instead to really understand a tradition, one has to actually live the life of the tradition, by which one would understand how reason works in the tradition.
Needless to say Rowe's philosophical program is intense and legitimately paradigm shifting if taken seriously. The only issue with this book might be how much more intense part 3 is in contrast to parts 1 & 2, but if you've got the gumption to work through it, I think it's more than rewarding. Rowe's writing style is actually really great. It's hard to find academic writing that is so lively and well thought out. He eschews much of the objectivist pretentions of scholarly writing in a delightful way. The way that he makes ancient traditions speak to modern issues and questions to make the logic of these ancient traditions clear is fantastic.
In parts 1 & 2 Rowe sketches out the contours of 1st & 2nd century Christianity and stoicism by analyzing the main themes from the writings of Seneca, Epictetus, and Aurelius for the Stoics and Paul, Luke, and Justin Martyr for the Christians. He lets each figure speak for themselves and does not force them into preconceived categories and structures. This alone is fantastic.
Part 3 is where it really starts to get intense. This part gets really deep really quick. I understood as much as I could, but even then I realized at times I was a bit out of my depth. Essentially Rowe is criticizing common scholarly ways of analyzing and comparing what he calls competing traditions. Academics tend to take what he calls the encyclopedic approach which fails to deal with the unique particularity and structured life of a tradition. Instead the encyclopedic approach treats a tradition as abstract thoughts or positions on a set of issues, say "God" "the after life" "ethics" etc. However, Rowe insists that we have to understand traditions according to the narratives that they tell about themselves. Thus, "God" for a Christian is not merely a personal, omnipotent, ominiscient being, who also happens to be in three persons with a united essence, but "God" is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Jesus. God is known through a narrative. Likewise the Stoic narrative has a different accounting of what they would refer to as "God" such that while they may be using the same word as the Christians, they might as well not be since they mean something completely different by it. Rowe asserts that traditions cannot be translated into one another. Instead to really understand a tradition, one has to actually live the life of the tradition, by which one would understand how reason works in the tradition.
Needless to say Rowe's philosophical program is intense and legitimately paradigm shifting if taken seriously. The only issue with this book might be how much more intense part 3 is in contrast to parts 1 & 2, but if you've got the gumption to work through it, I think it's more than rewarding. Rowe's writing style is actually really great. It's hard to find academic writing that is so lively and well thought out. He eschews much of the objectivist pretentions of scholarly writing in a delightful way. The way that he makes ancient traditions speak to modern issues and questions to make the logic of these ancient traditions clear is fantastic.
April 10, 2020
Ten sparkling stars. This is such a rich, profound, insightful, clarifying, organizing, illuminating, enjoyable book. Each day I looked forward to picking it up and each day I was fed. Yes. I had read wide, if not the complete, swaths of Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Paul, Luke, and Justin Martyr. Surely this equipped me to appreciate the work of Rowe, but I urge you to pick up One True Life. It will make you want to begin, continue, or return, and it will certainly stimulate you to live one true life not to mention make you ready to understand the one you live.
August 19, 2025
Hot take minutes after finishing: this is in my top five philosophy & theology of all time. What a banger. Instead of rehashing Rowe's arguments I'll just exhort you to go get a copy, but here's a taste from the absolutely triumphant final chapter:
"We must be able to evaluate rationally, MacIntyre thinks, that on which we are to make
judgments. If we must use language of conversion, it is a reasoned conversion of which we must speak. But as the ancient Christians and Roman Stoics would see it, Kierkegaard was closer to the truth: no matter how many criteria we need for living in one way or another, we cannot make them add up to a judgment about a true life before we live it. “Come join!” is not the same as “Test and confirm!” In this crucial sense perhaps, the choice can be called criterionless. There is really no place on which to stand that could secure us against the need to live one way or another in faith. And so we leap—or don’t."
"We must be able to evaluate rationally, MacIntyre thinks, that on which we are to make
judgments. If we must use language of conversion, it is a reasoned conversion of which we must speak. But as the ancient Christians and Roman Stoics would see it, Kierkegaard was closer to the truth: no matter how many criteria we need for living in one way or another, we cannot make them add up to a judgment about a true life before we live it. “Come join!” is not the same as “Test and confirm!” In this crucial sense perhaps, the choice can be called criterionless. There is really no place on which to stand that could secure us against the need to live one way or another in faith. And so we leap—or don’t."
March 25, 2022
A remarkable book that reveals the impossibility of treating Stoicism and Christianity as interesting ways of life that one can pick and choose from as if one were shopping down an aisle at the grocery story of comparative religion/philosophy grabbing one's favorite parts out of each. Each tradition is a summons to a way of life with distinctive stories and rival (gasp!) traditions.
The author grabs three particular men from Stoicism and Christianity each and unpacks them. Finally, he wrestles with comparative religion as a philosopher, New Testament scholar, and, more importantly and undeniably, a Christian.
Not a casual read, but an academic one worth embarking on.
Makes me want to read and hear more of this Duke University professor's work.
The author grabs three particular men from Stoicism and Christianity each and unpacks them. Finally, he wrestles with comparative religion as a philosopher, New Testament scholar, and, more importantly and undeniably, a Christian.
Not a casual read, but an academic one worth embarking on.
Makes me want to read and hear more of this Duke University professor's work.
April 4, 2022
Interesting epistemological points...we are limitted by our viewpoints/worldview, but no theology/ontological discussion about even though we have limitations (original sin) we are made in the image of God and capable of recognizing our need for a knowledge beyond our own, one that is not dependent on our own limitations. I believe through common grace that all people have some knowledge, although only as a shadow, of God and his design within creation, including our own rationality, that can lead to the glimpse of absolute truths that all people (and traditions) are struggling to address. Whether we are made humble and wiser (the writers of the U.S. constitution, did they have a conversion experience?) by this knowledge given by God's grace is where theology enters.
Read
January 20, 2026This book was interesting enough in that it articulated basic reasons why stoic philosophy and Christianity are rival and mutually exclusive ways of thought and life. However, I wish the book had gone *much* deeper in its explanation of exactly how Christianity proposes that a person is formed, namely in the image of Christ by the Spirit, as opposed to the self-reliant, anthropological autonomous view of the stoics.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews